Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — that reading this grants no host or execution access — but says nothing about auth requirements, freshness, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the resource list front-loaded and the safety caveat second. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and explicitly bounds the blast radius. The only gap is the unexplained visit_id, which is a minor omission given the tool takes no required arguments.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole optional parameter visit_id is never mentioned in the description, so its purpose, format (32-hex pattern), and the effect of omitting it are left entirely to the schema. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap as the low-coverage rule requires.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the resources returned: sandbox admins, signed delegation chains, revocations, and exact scope. An agent can tell this is an administrative-state reader, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby read_governance or read_sandbox siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling read_* tools. The clause about host/execution access is a scope disclaimer, not a routing rule, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred over read_governance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.